Inquiries regarding the future of AACR2, suitability of MARC, and efforts to cope with Web resources have been accelerating recently as evidenced by a few of the key related papers and conferences (20-23, 60-63).The emergence of "digital libraries" has brought metadata into contention with cataloging data; the distinction between the two easily blurs. XML's concurrent success has thrust these developments into a new light.The Library of Congress, of course, has been heavily involved. The hallmark of LC's response seems to be encapsulation¯literally in the case of the MARC XML schema and as a subset in the case of the MODS schema (16, 12).These and other schemes, that focus more on digital materials in contrast to physical materials, are in turn incorporated by the Metadata Encoding & Transmission Standard (METS) (64).The METS schema, also in XML, is a standard for encoding descriptive (including MARC), administrative, and structural metadata regarding objects within a digital library.It is MARC's role in this environment that gives pause.MARC is not Web-oriented despite being gussied up in XML.
Against this backdrop, XOBIS is offered as an experimental model and as proof of concept¯ to illustrate the feasibility of replacing MARC with an XML schema (not just uncritically translating MARC's existing structure into XML), and to evaluate its benefits in supporting future system capabilities. This should not be interpreted as minimizing potential problems, but intends to emphasize that these issues need to be identified and explored in a spirit of inquiry and with a desire for the betterment of our profession. Development and implementation of a core XML schema presents an opportunity for librarians to provide leadership in information management, and to regain influence, which has been hemorrhaging to other sectors in the wake of the introduction of the World Wide Web. The strategic opportunity afforded by XML will not last forever (39).The defensive strategy of isolating the traditional from the digital and clinging to an outmoded data format is counterproductive. The best standards enable rather than confine (65).
Although XOBIS constitutes a structural whole, it is still very much a work in progress. There are many avenues for refinement and further pursuit of its ideals.One area for further study is how different XOBIS-based systems could interact. Another is using XML namespaces to incorporate local or vendor specific customization. Its implication for changes to existing cataloging codes needs review.The projected suite of related schemas needs further consideration. XOBIS extends the current scope of cataloging without prescribing rigid data requirements.Data collection development policies might help ensure that what is of significance or scholarly value goes into systems as part of a distributed effort.
At this time, we recommend XOBIS for experimentation only.It is likely that flaws will emerge during testing, but we are hopeful that the structure will be strengthened through increased scrutiny. We recognize that for wide-scale application, further analysis and consensus building will be necessary. We want to keep XOBIS from getting too rigid before being vetted in the library, museum, and XML communities. Many worthwhile efforts are underway; it is important that a variety of approaches be considered.Reaching agreement is a worthwhile goal, although often difficult.
In developing XOBIS, we have aspired to balance many factors, e.g. the:
Advantages and disadvantages occurred with each decision we faced.Repeated iterations of XOBIS attempted to reconcile newly recognized patterns, which intriguingly seem to be organic in nature.How successfully XOBIS reflects our attempt, and how effective our effort to magnify a small library's perspective while keeping a medical library perspective in check, await review. Lastly, we have tried to balance passion with dispassion.To move XOBIS from an individual to a community effort, we actively seek partners to continue this fascinating exploration.